Two Schloss paintings

Portrait of Adrianus Tegularius, by Frans Hals

by Saida S. Hasanagic

The recovery of unrestituted paintings looted during the Holocaust that appear at international auctions with dubious provenances are examined in examples of Portrait of Adrianus Tegularius by Frans Hals (1582-1666) and Le Duo (Merry Company Making Music) by Joost Van Geel (1631-1698) which is featured in the upcoming Lempertz sale on 19 November 2022.

It is therefore important to begin with the Portrait of Adrianus Tegularius, previously part of the Adolphe Schloss Collection. Its provenance reads like a classic thriller and had led to a landmark criminal case in France involving Adam Williams, over the course of eleven years. Williams, a British-born New York-based Old Master dealer, learnt his trade at the Richard Green Gallery in London in the 1970s before relocating to the USA and eventually taking over the directorship of the Newhouse Galleries in New York City before setting up his eponymous dealership in 1998. However, to tell this story we have to start from the beginning.

The earliest recorded date in the provenance chain starts in Amsterdam in 1812 with the collector Jeronimo de Bosch IV when it was sold by Philippus van der Schley. In 1818, the painting was sold by Cornelis Sebille Roos as the property of J. Kerkhoven. In 1848, it was auctioned anonymously and acquired by the Amsterdam dealer / auctioneer Jeronimo de Vries. The Portrait of Tegularius then relocated to Germany and was recorded (undated) as the property of M. Unger in Berlin, then Richard Freiherr von Friesen in Dresden, until 1884, followed by Werner Dahl of Düsseldorf until 1901, when it was sold to Adolphe Schloss. The painting remained with the Schloss family after Adolphe’s death in 1910. It passed on to his wife Lucy Haas Schloss until her death in 1938 when it was inherited by their children.

On 16 April 1943, the Schloss collection, including the Hals, which comprised 333 paintings, was confiscated by Vichy officials and German security agents at the Château de Chambon in Laguenne (Corrèze). It was subsequently sold on 1 November 1943 as part of a group of 262 paintings from the confiscated Schloss collection to Hitler’s Führermuseum (or Linz Museum) Project. These 262 paintings were then transferred to the Führerbau, Hitler’s ad

Château de Chambon, Laguenne

ministrative office in Munich, on 24 November 1943 where they remained until unknown individuals broke into it on 29-30 April 1945 and emptied it of its contents, including the paintings, one of which was Hals’ Portrait of Tegularius.

It resurfaced in a private collection in Frankfurt am Main in 1952. The trail went cold until 1967 when it was offered in New York at the Parke-Bernet auction as lot no. 32, part of a deceased princess’ estate. It sold for US$ 32,500. The painting was offered for sale at Christie's in London on 24 March 1972 (lot no. 83) as part of the Ludvig G. Braathen Collection, where it was ‘bought in’ following French official efforts to halt the sale. On 28 March 1979, it sold at Sotheby's, London as lot no. 15 for £21,000. In 1982, it was reported to have been in a Dutch private collection located in West Germany. On 21 April 1989, the Hals changed hands again without an indication of its theft in the Christie’s catalogue  (lot no. 26) when it was bought for £110,000 by Adam Williams for the Newhouse Galleries in New York.

In September 1990, the painting was displayed at the Newhouse Galleries stand during the Biennale des Antiquaires at Grand Palais in Paris. It was recognised by Jean Demartini, one of the Schloss heirs, who immediately informed the Paris prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor started a criminal inquiry which led to Williams’ indictment and the painting’s seizure by French authorities. The investigating magistrate (Juge d’Instruction) closed the criminal case based on the lack of bad faith on the part of Williams. The Schloss heirs appealed the decision and the Court (Chambre d’Accusation) confirmed the decision of the investigating magistrate that: a) a settlement of 3,812,000 francs had been reached between some of the Schloss heirs and the German government in 1961, as confirmed in the letter to the French government on 24 April 1961; and b) Williams bought the painting in good faith at fair market price at Christie’s in London.

A protracted legal battle continued whereby the prosecutor’s office appealed the decision to the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) on 4 June 1998, which in turn reversed the decision of the lower court and returned the case to the Versailles “Chambre d’Accusation” to be re-examined. Effectively, the French Supreme Court established principles that were to be used as future guidelines: 1) the settlement between some Schloss heirs and the German government did not bar any subsequent criminal proceedings, as the settlement did not stop the public prosecutor from pursuing a criminal case based on the same facts, unless a specific law prevented it and the Supreme Court did not find any such law; 2) the settlement is only binding for the Schloss heirs who signed it, and not for the ones who were not a party to it; 3) the settlement with the German Government does not affect any criminal claims that the Schloss family might wish to raise against the Nazis who committed the crime; and finally an important point 4) the absence of bad faith on the part of Williams was not established.

The “Tribunal Correctionnel” at Nanterre indicated that the painting and its provenance were outlined in Collections World Directory published in 1979, stating that the painting was stolen and belonged to the Schloss Collection. It was pointed out that the painting was listed in the French “Répertoire des biens spoliés” (1947) and in the Frans Hals catalogue raisonné published by Seymour Slive (no. 207, 1974), where it was again documented as stolen. The Court adjudicated that a professional dealer, and a reputable Old Master specialist such as Williams, could not claim ignorance and should had done his due diligence by independently researching the painting and not relying on the incomplete provenance from the auction catalogue. As any committed art market professional, he would have found out that the painting was subject to a claim. To further hamper his defence, Williams initially claimed that he had never heard of the Schloss Collection, but had previously confided to another dealer that the painting had been sold several times at auction although it was stolen during the Second World War. This case strongly reiterates that the burden of proof is on the art professionals to prove their bona fide purchase. In addition, this means that indemnification of the Jewish families for their material losses due to looting does not constitute a limitation to subsequent criminal action based on the same facts. 

On 6 July 2001, the Court sentenced Williams to an eight-month suspended prison sentence for possession of artwork looted during the Second World War, and the painting was restituted to the family. Pierre-François Veil, the family’s lawyer, was certain that this landmark ruling would set a precedent that would not only apply to private dealers but to museums and galleries as well. As such, the decision sent a clear message to dealers and auction houses to improve the transparency of their activities, rendering it irrelevant whether they are just mere agents.

Twenty-two years later, Joost van Geel’s Le Duo (Merry Company Making Music), is featured at a Lempertz auction in Cologne on 19 November 2022 (Auction 1209 - Paintings, Drawings Sculpture 14th -19th Centuries) as lot no. 1569, with an estimate of €20,000-30,000. Dr. Walther Bernt had authenticated the work in 1976. The painting remains unrestituted. We have a limited knowledge about the history of this particular painting. The earliest date in its provenance starts with 23 June 1820 at the auction of the estate of Benjamin West, of Royal Academy fame. It was then acquired by a private collection (Perkins), probably in Paris, then by Adolphe Schloss at an unknown date. The van Geel painting shares the same post-confiscation fate as that of the Hals. However, it is alarming that Lempertz does not offer any provenance to the painting, apart from the Walther Bernt certificate.

van Geel painting, 19 November 2022 Lempertz sale

The link to the Lempertz online bid has been removed but the artwork’s details are still available in the auction catalogue, a sign that the German auction house has been made aware of the painting’s troubled past. Since 2001, the artworld has become more sensitive to the Second World War claims. As for the auction houses, hiding behind art-historical certificates and not producing any relevant history of well-documented objects should send clear red flags to any agent, buyer and collector.

More about the author

Saida S. Hasanagic, MA, is an art historian based in London, England. She is an independent scholar specialising in provenance research, art crime and its prevention from perspectives of art history, art business and international relations. Saida worked as a provenance researcher for the JDCRP Foundation: The Pilot Project – The Fate of the Adolphe Schloss Collection. Her main areas of interest are the Second World War plunder and cultural crimes committed in conflicts since then, notably in the former Yugoslavia with focus on spoliation and restitution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 

Sources

Anglade, Leila. “Art Law and the Holocaust: The French Situation.” Art Antiquity and Law, Volume IV, Issue 4, December 1999, pp. 302-311.

Anglade, Leila. "The Portrait of Pastor Adrianus Tegularius by Franz Hals: The Schloss Case before the French Criminal Courts.” Art Antiquity and Law, Volume VIII, Issue 1, March 2003, pp. 77-87.

Campfens, Evelien (ed.). Fair and Just Solutions. Eleven International Publishing. 2015. The case is mentioned briefly as the footnote 3 on page 153, by Norman Palmer in Chapter 7: The Best We Can Do? pp. 153-185.

Demartini v Williams, 18th Chamber, Tribunal Correctionnel, Nanterre, 6 July 2001. (unpublished)

“Dealer guilty of handling Nazi art.” BBC News. Friday, 6 July 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1426508.stm

Giovannini, Teresa. “The Holocaust and the looted art.” Art Antiquity and Law, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2002, pp. 263-280.
https://www.lalive.law/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/tgi_holocaust_and_looted_art.pdf

Melikian, Souren, “Buyer Beware: An Art World Nightmare Worthy of Kafka: The Mystery of a Looted Portrait.” The New York Times. 1 September 2001.
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/01/news/buyer-bewarean-art-world-nightmare-worthy-of-kafka-the-mystery-of-a.html

Slive, Seymour. Frans Hals, Catalogue Raisonné. London: Phaidon Press, 1974.

Other sources

Adam Williams Fine Art
https://www.adam-williams.com/about

ERR database

https://www.errproject.org

HALS (Frans) Anvers, 1581/85 - Haarlem, 1666. Portrait du Pasteur Adrianus Tegularius
https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/sites/archives_diplo/schloss/tableauxH/tableaux76.html

https://pilot-demo.jdcrp.org/artwork/hals_portrait_52560/

Joost van Geel as Merry Company Making Music, Lempertz, 19 November 2022, Auction 1209 - Paintings, Drawings Sculpture 14th -19th Centuries, Cologne, lot no.1569, estimate € 20,000-30,000

https://www.lempertz.com/lempertz_api/images/Kat_1209_AK_Nov_2022_DS.pdf

GEEL. (Joost Van) Rotterdam, 1631 - id., 1698. Le Duo.
https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/sites/archives_diplo/schloss/tableauxG/tableaux53.html

https://pilot-demo.jdcrp.org/artwork/geel_duo_51658/

Pots and pans

by Marc Masurovsky

Since the first Holocaust memorial was built in Europe, soon followed by dozens of others, the story line that these venerable institutions have conveyed to a global public has been exemplified by the Holocaust is not about property but about people.

Put another way, the vast majority of the six million Jewish men, women and children who lost their lives in the Holocaust were so downtrodden that all they owned were pots and pans and the clothes that they wore. Or so the conventional story goes. Those lucky enough to collect art were people of means who hailed for the most part from Central and Western Europe. The facts speak for themselves: 75 per cent of Jews lived in Eastern Europe; 90 per cent of them were murdered. In other words, the Holocaust is for the most part an Eastern European Ashkenazi story.

This stale stereotyping of Jews as living in substandard poverty across Europe has gone hand in hand with a stubborn refusal by Jewish communities worldwide to address the more complex question of property loss as one of the keystones of 20th century anti-Jewish behavior. If we follow this line of reasoning, there were only two classes of Jews-on top, the wealthy who had enough disposable income to collect fineries of all sorts including lavish furniture and expensive art, and the “shtetl” Jews, the peddlers, the pieceworkers who lived “on the other side of the tracks”, the inhabitants of the Jewish Pale in Eastern Europe. Forgotten or ignored are the lower middle class, artisans, skilled workers, cultural and intellectual workers, the midde class whom we find in every community, town, city, region of Europe. What of them? Do they fit in this story? They do but their property does not count. It’s not part of the Holocaust story. Or so we are told.

Fast forward to November 15, 2019, to the 20th anniversary celebration of the Paris-based CIVS—Commission for indemnification of Victims of Spoliation during WWII. Participants to that conference heard from some speakers that most Jews living in France were of “humble backgrounds” and did not collect any art. They were more about “pots and pans.” That did not stop the Vichy authorities and their Nazi friends In the Paris region alone, from confiscating and transferring to non-Jewish owners (a process known as “Aryanization”) the intangible and tangible property of 31000 owners. Moreover, close to 70000 residences where Jews lived were literally emptied during the so-called “M-Aktion” between March 1942 and the summer of 1944 in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. I doubt that those responsible for this wholesale campaign of ransacking Jewish dwellings would have committed so many resources and logistics if it were just about “pots and pans.” 

You do not have to be an “art collector” or “art dealer” to amass works and objects of art. There are multiple tiers of value in the art world and the art market whereby individuals can amass an impressive amount of esthetic objects of small value---paintings, works on paper, even sculpture, decorative objects, books, musical instruments, Judaica, produced by talented artists and craftsmen whose names are not Bellini, Tintoretto, Fragonard and Rembrandt.

In short, it is too convenient and shameful to oversimplify in order to deflect attention from the real problem:
-Culture is an integral part of the discussion on National Socialism, anti-Jewish policies and the Holocaust;
-Jewish culture was thriving in the interwar years;
-The Nazis and their local Fascist allies nearly extinguished it;
-Human beings—Jewish and non-Jewish alike—are attracted to objects that please them and, if they can, they acquire them so that they can live with them, appreciate them and share them with family, friends, acquaintances and complete strangers.

Thousands of artists, writers, poets, musicians, craftsmen from close to twenty nations lost their livelihood and their lives between 1933 and 1945, their property was seized, never to be seen again. The cumulative impact of those losses triggered a lessening, an impoverishment of the cultural heritage of Europe from which we have not fully recovered.

These losses were part of a well-orchestrated State-sponsored attempt (2/3 successful) by the Third Reich and its allies to erase all traces of Jewish life and activity across Europe—a continental form of “Aryanization” which witnessed a multi-billion dollar transfer of property from Jewish ownership into the hands of non-Jews and their businesses which powered the wartime and postwar economies of European countries.

So, no, it was not about “pots and pans.” It was about much more. To deny this fact is to deny and rewrite history.

The time is long overdue for these longstanding revisionist trends in the teaching of the Holocaust to come to an end.

La "question juive" et le marché de l'art en France, 1940-1944

by Marc Masurovsky

[This paper was delivered in French at an international conference in Bonn, Germany, on November 30, 2017. The conference focused on plunder and art trafficking in wartime France, 1940-1944, and was sponsored by the Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste.]

J’ai choisi de vous parler de la « question juive » et du marché de l’art à Paris pendant l’occupation de la France par les troupes et services du Reich allemand, de mi-juin 1940 à la fin du mois d’août 1944.

Pourquoi un tel sujet ? 

Je me suis demandé, peut-être naïvement, s’il était utile d’associer la “question juive” au marchéde l’art en France sous Vichy et l’occupation allemande. Mon intention était de proposer la notion suivante : la campagne antijuive, antisémite, menée en tandem par la France de Vichy et par l’occupant allemand, a changéde manière radicale le comportement des gens en France en injectant la « question juive » dans leur quotidien, leur vécu, leurs échanges, leurs rapports personnels et professionnels. Avant juin-juillet 1940, on ne prenait pas de décisions dans un contexte juif/non-juif ou aryen. Mais pendant quatre longues années, cette dualitéjuive/aryenne ou juive/non juive fit partie de la vie quotidienne de ceux et celles qui vivaient en France et surtout dans les villes où on pouvait trouver une communauté juive.Mise en pratique dans le monde de l’art, dans le marchéde l’art, la question juive, àmes yeux, devient pertinente.

Que veut-on dire par la “question juive” ?

Cette expression suggère une remise en cause, la nécessitéde questionner ce qui est « juif », la qualité de « juif, » la spécificité« juive. » C’est une question qui se pose différemment selon que l’on soit juif, ou non juif.

Le débat sur la question juive a été lancé par des philosophes allemands dans la première moitié du 19ème siècle, dans un contexte tout autre, à savoir l’émancipation des juifs vivant dans les provinces allemandes.

En 1843, Karl Marx rédige une « Réflexion sur la question juive » qui prend à partie un pamphlet polémique « La question juive », rédigé la même année par un de ses anciens professeurs, Bruno Bauer. Ce dernier était opposé à l’émancipation des communautés juives implantés en terres allemandes. Dans sa réplique à Bauer, Marx associe indissolublement la qualité de juif à une activité économique. Autrement dit, on ne peut être juif sans être producteur de capital, de richesse économique. Si on suit le raisonnement de Marx, l’émancipation des juifs, le règlement de la question juive ne peut s’accomplir que si les juifs abandonnent délibérément leur qualité de juif telle qu’elle est supposée être conçue dans un contexte capitaliste. Cela reviendrait à dire qu’une communauté juive émancipée accepterait de perdre son essence juive, qui, elle, est liée à une activité spécifique de production de capital. Même si Marx pensait honnêtement que son projet était humaniste et séculier, ma vulgarisation de ses propos avancés en 1843, soit cent ans avant la Shoah, démontre comment un tel argument pouvait être complètement dénaturé un siècle plus tard par la montée des idéologies fondées sur l’inégalité des races et la supériorité de la race aryenne qui trouveront leur écho dans le national socialisme allemand et ses variantes antisémites dans l’extrême-droite française. Je ne suis pas ici pour faire le procès de Marx mais je voulais simplement retracer très brièvement la généalogie de cette expression néfaste.

La réflexion de Marx sur la « question juive » remet donc en cause l’essence de la judéité, la qualité de juif, sa substance spirituelle, culturelle, et existentielle. Parler de « question juive » équivaut à questionner la raison d’être « juif ». A partir de 1940, la solution de la question juive implique l’extirpation des juifs de la vie économique de la société civile en leur soutirant leurs richesses et leurs capacités de produire, de consommer, d’exister économiquement, socialement, religieusement et culturellement. Pour moi, la question juive comme notion antisémite s’inscrit dans une interprétation économique de la qualité de « juif. »

L’activité économique qui nous intéresse aujourd’hui est celle qui caractérise le marché de l’art, un organisme complexe, qui ressemble plutôt à un tissu de réseaux et de filaments liant entre eux à des degrés divers artistes, marchands, collectionneurs, courtiers, personnels de musées, de galeries, de maisons de vente, notaires, avocats, banquiers, experts, historiens de l’art dont les compétences aident à soutenir et maintenir ce que l’on appelle le marché de l’art. Ces filaments s’étendent à travers l’Europe—et même au-delà jusque dans les Amériques et l’Asie. Ce monde ne peut fonctionner sans opacité, un monde dominé par le secret d’affaires. Après 1940, tout change. Les marchands, les galéristes, les collectionneurs d’origine juive disparaissent du marché, tandis que leurs inventaires, leurs biens culturels et artistiques s’écoulent par les mêmes réseaux dont ils se servaient avant l’imposition de mesures discriminatoires les excluant de toute activité économique. Vu l’intimité des rapports qui existaient entre tous les différents acteurs du marché de l’art, il est impossible d’exclure la possibilité que les marchands non-juifs n’aient acheté et vendu des objets qui appartenaient à leurs homologues juifs, souvent rivaux et concurrents. Très vite, les réseaux du marché de l’art s’adaptent à la nouvelle réalité—ils se maintiennent et s’épanouissent sous couvert d’une force d’occupation militaire et policière nazie et un régime autoritaire de collaboration qui se déclare français et qui est, par sa nature même, antisémite.

De nouveaux clients se manifestent à Paris. En l’occurrence, des milliers de fonctionnaires civils et militaires qui travaillent pour l’administration allemande, les services de sécurité et les différents ministères du Reich implantés d’ores et déjà en France occupée. S’y ajoutent les effectifs des sociétés commerciales, financières et industrielles des pays de l’Axe en quête de nouveaux clients. Ces nouveaux-venus accroissent la demande pour des objets et œuvres d’art sur le marché parisien. Les reçus des marchands, les factures, les bons de transport, les échanges de correspondance constituent une partie des preuves matérielles qui confirment la multiplication des transactions entre acteurs du marché de l’art en France occupée et une importante clientèle provenant du Reich et de ses territoires annexes.

Si la politique antijuive de Vichy et de l’occupant allemand nécessite la mise en place d’une France ‘judenrein’—sans juifs, qu’ils soient nés en France ou venant d’un autre pays, un marchéde l’art déjudaïsérequiert l’anéantissement de sa composante juive, c’est-à-dire, des membres de l’école de Paris et de leurs œuvres ainsi que l’exclusion des marchands, collectionneurs et autres spécialistes et courtiers qui peuplent ce marchéet qui sont fichés comme appartenant àla communauté juive.

Qui sont ces artistes ?

Installés en France par centaines depuis le début du 20ème siècle, ils avaient quittéleurs foyers en Europe de l’Est et dans les Balkans en quête d’une inspiration artistique qu’ils étaient sûrs de trouver à l’Ouest et plus précisément en France. Ce sont les grands oubliés, les marginaux, pauvres, difficilement intégrés dans la société française, dans les milieux de l’art. Ils s’expriment en yiddisch, en russe, en d’autres langues slaves. Ils fréquentent certains cafés surtout ceux de Montparnasse comme le Dome et la Rotonde. Bien que les grands marchands juifs parisiens les ignorent, ils créent leurs propres réseaux, persévèrent, côtoient de grands artistes comme Chagall, Braque, Picasso, Modigliani et Soutine, ils attirent des collectionneurs et marchands séduits par leur romantisme et le lyrisme de leurs œuvres. La plupart sont des crève-la-faim. Mais ils persistent et arrivent à faire entrer leurs œuvres dans une multitude de salons et d’expositions. Leur présence pose un défi au goût officiel qui met en avant un art « français. » Si bien que lorsque la France tombe sous le joug nazi en 1940, une dualité entre art « français » et art « juif » prend forme. 

Si le goût officiel que prônent les milieux conservateurs plutôt aisés du monde de l’art se démarque de cet art produit par des personnes juives venant de l’Est, l’instauration d’un régime autoritaire et antisémite servira à réaffirmer que ces artistes « étrangers » ne reflètent aucunement les valeurs de la France qu’imaginent les vichyistes. Yvon Bizardel en profita pour définir Vichy en ces termes : c’est la revanche du goût contre les dérives esthétiques qui caractérisèrent l’entre-deux-guerres et le déclin de la troisième république. D’une certaine façon, l’imposition d’une esthétique bien « française » est à l’ordre du jour pendant ces années noires. Mais pour ce faire, il faut se débarrasser des « autres » et les remplacer par des artistes de mérite qui sont, par ailleurs, non juifs et français. En tout cas, c’est comme cela que je le ressens, en particulier, lors de l’annonce de la nouvelle école de Paris en 1941, suite à une série d’expositions regroupant des artistes français à tendance moderne, certains fortement abstraits, d’autres puissamment figuratifs et traditionnalistes dans les thèmes qu’ils explorent. Nouvelle école de Paris. Le choix des mots est particulièrement pervers, quand on sait quelle a été la destinée de la quasi-totalité des membres de l’école de Paris de l’entre-deux-guerres, juive et étrangère, en grande partie massacrée ou morte dans des conditions atroces produites par l’isolement, la terreur, et le manque.

Peut-on argumenter que le renouveau de l’art français sous Vichy constitue une étape nécessaire dans la déjudaïsation de la vie artistique en France?

Faut-il en déduire que l’épuration de l’Ecole de Paris cède la place à cet art « français » non juif sous Vichy et au-delà ?

L’activité commerciale artistique évolue dans un climat de plus en plus sévère. L’Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg de concert avec les services de sécurité du parti nazi lancent une campagne systématique visant à extirper de la société française tout ce qui est « juif. » L’ERR cible les collections d’œuvres et d’objets d’art appartenant à des propriétaires juifs--collectionneurs, marchands, et artistes confondus. Le musée du Jeu de Paume, sous la direction des spécialistes de l’ERR en poste à Paris, se transforme dès l’automne de 1940 en centre de triage, de sélection, de catalogage et de traitement de dizaines de milliers d’objets et d’œuvres d’art de toutes sortes, de qualité extrêmement variable, soutirés à des centaines de propriétaires d’origine juive tant dans la région parisienne que dans le Sud-ouest et éventuellement tout au long de la côte d’azur. Paris devient la plaque tournante d’un marché de l’art où pullulent une quantité impossible à chiffrer d’objets et d’œuvres d’art pillés, confisqués, aryanisés. Le Jeu de Paume regorge d’objets ; l’excédent est dispersé parmi une douzaine de dépôts auxiliaires aménagés pour la plupart dans les quartiers huppés de la capitale en particulier dans le 8ème, le 16ème et le 17èmearrondissement. Un réseau d’appartements et d’hôtels complète cette infrastructure de recel d’objets pillés. Tout ce qui n’est pas emballé et convoyé vers le Reich est recyclable sur le marché parisien et de temps à autre à destination de pays limitrophes—Belgique, Hollande, Suisse, Italie, Autriche, même vers le Gouvernement général dans ce qui fut la Pologne. Pouvons-nous parler d’une suroffre d’objets pillés? Il serait facile de dire que l’excédent d’objets pillés fut convoyé à destination des villes allemandes frappés par les bombardements alliés. Mais la situation est bien plus compliquée. Les documents d’époque et les dossiers de restitution d’après-guerre nous laissent croire que la majorité des objets volés chez les particuliers n’ont jamais été enregistrés par les fonctionnaires de l’ERR ou de la Dienststelle Westen. Et pourtant, ces objets ont bel et bien disparu. De nombreux foyers ont subi des actes de pillage répêtés, parfois trois, quatre, même cinq perquisitions, s’étendant sur plusieurs années. Une partie de ces objets seulement furent « traités » au Jeu de Paume. Qu’en est-il du reste ? Comme réponse possible : ils ont été écoulés par des antiquaires, des bouquinistes, des luthiers, des joaillers, des galeries d’art, des salles de ventes, par des ventes improvisées dans des lieux aussi insolites que des hôtels et des restaurants. Ce recyclage nécessita des milliers de personnes disposées à faciliter pour toutes sortes de raisons, la monétisation de la propriété juive. 

La M-Aktion agit comme courroie de transmission entre les agences de pillage et les points de vente ; le Jeu de Paume, comme centre de tri, opère des sélections d’objets à rendre à la M-Aktion pour être ensuite vendus sur le marché. La machine de pillage et de recyclage assure un débit important de produits pillés. Les marchands, en général bien renseignés sur de nouvelles sources d’objets à exploiter, devaient bien se douter que l’origine de tant d’objets en circulation était illicite, le fruit d’une confiscation, d’un prélèvement exécuté par des commandos à la solde de l’occupant ou de Vichy. Le marché noir qu’entretenait différents services allemands, regorgeait lui aussi de biens pillés et fournissait des filières de recyclage qui s’étendaient au-delà des frontières, en particulier vers l’Espagne et la Suisse, animées par la pègre corse, des collabos venant de pays alliés à l’Axe et de temps en temps par des mauvaises graines de la communauté juive, des opportunistes qui se retournèrent contre leurs compatriotes, motivés par l’appât du gain. Quoiqu’ils ne fussent pas très nombreux, leur existence est indéniable ainsi que leur participation au pillage économique et artistique de la communauté juive en France occupée.

Après quatre années de pillages, de confiscations, de saisies, dans le cadre d’une entreprise génocidaire, le marché de l’art en 1945 est totalement compromis, pollué, contaminé par une masse d’objets et d’œuvres, difficilement identifiables, mais qui proviennent de foyers exterminés, de vies brisées. Tous les recoins de ce qu’on appelle le monde de l’art, sont impliqués dans cette entreprise, y compris les fonctionnaires en poste qui officialisaient et rationnalisaient ces actes de pillages contre la communauté juive. Le comble voudrait que tout ce beau monde invoque après la guerre la bonne foi telle une incantation, afin de défendre leur comportement. Entretemps, six millions de vies humaines à travers l’Europe ont été effacées dans des circonstances on ne peut plus cruelles. 

Quand les forces alliées entrent dans Paris, le marché de l’art de l’après-guerre est privé de sa composante juive pour cause de génocide. Les marchands juifs rescapés sont ceux qui quittèrent la France à temps ou se terrèrent dans des villages isolés en attendant des jours meilleurs. Ils revinrent dans un Paris où seuls des fantômes bavardent en yiddish aux terrasses des cafés.

Schloss 91

by Marc Masurovsky

Portrait of a man, Bartholomeus van der Helst

“Portrait of a man” by Bartholomeus van der Helst, once belonged to the renown Schloss brothers in France. Their collection of over 330 Old Master paintings became the focal point of an intense rivalry between the wartime Vichy government and the plundering agents of the Nazi regime, especially Goering’s men, their trusted art advisors and senior officials of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR).

In a farcical race against time, both Vichy and the Germans attempted to be the first to seize the collection. The Germans got the upper hand as they allowed the French to seize it only to force them to hand it over and transfer it to Paris.

The paintings were sorted, inventoried, catalogued and shipped for the most part through the Jeu de Paume to the halfway house to the Linz Museum, the Fuhrerbau, located in the heart of Munich.

Shortly before the American army took control of Munich on April 30, 1945, the vast majority of looted art works stored at the Fuhrerbau were removed by unknown parties and their contents scattered. In the years that followed, American agents working in tandem with the Munich criminal police found not more than 100 paintings which had been stolen from the Fuhrerbau. Schloss 91 was not one of them.

In fact, 90 per cent of the paintings stolen from the Fuherbau remain unaccounted for. Some resurface on occasion. The most famous are the Schloss collection paintings which the French government does not seem anxious to recover on behalf of the Schloss family.

Well, here is an opportunity that might be missed for the 20th time as a looted, unrestituted painting belonging to the Schloss heirs is offered for sale in Vienna, Austria on April 12, 2016.

The provenance indicates that it was nowhere to be found during WWII and names Adolphe Schloss as a prewar owner, forgetting to mention that his heirs were also the rightful owners. That takes guts.

Will someone please say something and stop this sale?

Update:

According to the Kimsky auction house, the looted nature of the painting is obvious. Together with the consignor, it is willing to explore how to apply the Washington Principles to this situation, namely reach a "fair and just solution" or a financial settlement which would allow the painting to be sold.

The solution rests entirely in the hands of the family which is based in Paris, and in the hands of law enforcement--the painting is listed on the Interpol website as well as on at least one looted art database, the ERR/Jeu de Paume database.  It is high time for someone to act and not let this looted painting be sold without a resolution that has been offered by the consignor--a first--and the Viennese auction house--a first as well. We saw recently another Viennese auction house pretend that a bust by Houdon, Diane, resembled one which had been plundered from a Polish castle by German troops. A simple stroll on Poland's looted art website would have revealed in 15 minutes the fact that the Houdon in Vienna was one and the same as the one claimed by the Polish government.

In sum, some progress is being made in the art market whereby it is noticeable that consignors and auction houses, when motivated, can do the right thing.

It would be a shame for the Schloss heirs to let this opportunity slip by as well as Austrian and French law enforcement agencies to sit tight and not intervene.

Thoughts about Americans and the Third Reich

by Marc Masurovsky

Volumes could be written about this vast and complex topic. Here are some elements to think about and jump-start the discussion:

1/ the United States and Germany have been joined at the hip since at least World War I. Lawyers, scholars, businessmen, entertainers, artists, art historians, museum directors, curators, government officials, religious figures, bankers, diplomats—their mutually beneficial ties and exchanges have run deep before, during and after the Third Reich (1933-1945). That might explain why J. Edgar Hoover, legendary former director of the FBI, was paranoid (he was about everything, actually) that a fifth column of spies, agitators, and subversives could easily form on American soil without being bullied into serving the Reich. (Note: this line of thinking applied just as well to the perceived "communist threat") In his view, there were more than enough volunteers who would either remain neutral or engage in activities that would support National Socialist policies. In a state of war, that was potentially treasonous behavior. Henry Morgenthau, Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury, thought alike. Well aware of the interlocking interests that bound American and German businesses, Morgenthau was convinced that the American private sector would have to be held on a tight leash to prevent it from aiding Nazi Germany and from profiting from its discriminatory policies.

2/ American banks and companies have invested heavily in Germany. At Hitler’s rise to power, there were well over 300 American companies active on German soil. By the time the United States entered WWII in December 1941, that number may have dropped somewhat but not by much, many businessmen preferring to “wait it out” and hope for the best. That display of business pragmatism towards National Socialism allowed those companies to continue producing for the Reich either as wholly owned subsidiaries of the American parent or as companies with a majority German interest on their boards. Since the German government forbade profits from being repatriated to the US—the enemy--, those profits were set aside or, in some cases, cleverly concealed and transferred with the connivance of German officials to holding companies established in “neutral” countries where the American company held an interest. After WWII, these same American businesses sent their representatives into the various Allied zones of occupation to inspect their subsidiaries and tally up accounts receivables. Business as usual.

3/ No one knows exactly how many American citizens remained in Europe after 1933 and especially after September 1939. The State Department, through its consular offices, received thousands of requests for exit visas, most of which were not honored for quota reasons. What happened to what we believe were thousands of Americans from all walks of life stuck in every country that fell to the Nazis and their Fascist allies? Special camps and detention facilities were established for Allied enemy nationals—British and American—in France (Vittel is the most well-known) while the concentration camp of Gross-Rosen had a sub-camp where American actors, singers, and musicians were deported to, most of whom were African-American. If you look closely enough, you will find the names of American citizens typed on deportation lists from Western Europe, Italy, Austria, and Eastern European nations.

4/ for those American citizens who remained relatively free of movement throughout the years of Nazi rule, we know very little about their activities. However, we do get hints of what they were up to, like in France, where some frequented the Paris auction house of Drouot and acquired art objects which were later donated to American museums. American banks like Morgan and Chase invested in joint ventures involving the French real estate market under Vichy as it was being aryanized.

5/ In the postwar years, the discourse on Americans and the Holocaust has been a truncated, highly sanitized story. American soldiers and officers, traumatized, returning from the front, have testified about the horrors they witnessed, or rather, their aftermath as their units liberated one camp after another.

6/ After 1945, US government officials might have been upset about the role that American businesses played during WWII, but it was essential, especially in light of the incipient Cold War, to keep the nation on an even keel and not penalize opportunistic businessmen too harshly, or at all, for their dalliances with Nazis and Fascists. That might explain why no American CEO or company was brought to justice in the postwar years for acts of collaboration and abetting plunder. Those whose behavior was most conspicuous received private reprimands, but no more (Chase Bank and Morgan, for instance.). In liberated countries of Western Europe, American subsidiaries might have incurred fines for “wartime illicit profits.” Coincidentally, no sooner than WWII had ended that American intelligence priorities (equal to those of the British and the French) focused in part at using the private sector as a Trojan horse of sorts against real and perceived threats, making businessmen and entrepreneurs, partners in intelligence collection.

7/ And what of non-Jewish American survivors of internment in Nazi concentration camps, prisons and makeshift "confinement centers" set up in Axis-occupied territories? It would be fascinating and very moving to hear the stories of the many jazz and blues musicians who endured and survived the nightmare of Nazi concentration camps.

8/ By the end of 1946, the US had lifted all of its wartime restrictions on trade with Europe and the Far East. By the early 1950s, the Allies had settled financial scores with the neutral countries for having profited from trade with the Axis powers, especially as pertains to the recycling of gold looted by the Third Reich. And then, business resumed.

And so it goes…